The court considered the concept of specialty with extradition proceedings. Hughes LJ VP said: ‘Extradition is a process involving agreement between Sovereign States. The requesting State has no power to send its policemen into the requested State to arrest a prisoner who has run away there. That would be a direct infringement of the sovereignty of the requested State. So the requesting State depends upon the voluntary co-operation of the State where the fugitive is now to be found. Unsurprisingly States found that they generally had a common interest in A surrendering prisoners to B if B asked, providing that B entered into a reciprocal agreement to surrender those whom A wanted when the boot was on the other foot. On the other hand, States generally wished to retain the power to refuse to surrender in some circumstances. To take simple but non-exhaustive examples, they might wish to refuse if the conduct complained of was not a crime in the requested State, or if it was, for example, a crime of a political character where the interests of the two States diverged.
Historically, extradition was generally achieved through separate bilateral treaties between States. Commonly the power of the requested State to refuse extradition in some circumstances was preserved by the terms of such treaties. To give effect to that practice, the principle evolved that if A requested a prisoner from B, A would identify the offence for which the prisoner was wanted, so that B could decide whether there was a sufficient reason to refuse to surrender him. With that went the practice that if surrendered the prisoner could only be dealt with for the offence for which he had been sought, otherwise plainly the surrendering State’s power to refuse would be circumvented. That principle is called specialty . . The rationale for it may owe something to the protection of the individual, but it plainly lies principally in the international obligation between States. ‘
Judges:
Hughes LJ VP, King J, Gordon HHJ
Citations:
[2009] EWCA Crim 483, [2009] 2 Cr App R 9, [2009] 1 WLR 2342
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Kenny v Regina CACD 30-Jan-2013
The appellant had made a loan to a third party defendant in criminal fraud proceedings. At the time he did not know that that third party was subject to a restraint order under the 2002 Act. When he did come to know of the order he was asked to say . .
Cited – Regina v O’Brien SC 2-Apr-2014
The court considered how to apply the rule that an extradition may only be for trial on matters committed before the extradition if they have been the basis of the request to a defendant’s commission of contempt of court after conviction. After . .
Followed – Hey v Regina CACD 2010
. .
Followed – Regina v Birch CACD 2015
. .
Cited – Shepherd v Regina CACD 20-Jun-2019
Not unfair to admit statement whilst not a suspect
The defendant was in charge of a boat on the Thames. He was intoxicated as was his girlfriend. He was speeding, and allowed her to take the controls. She crashed the boat and died from her injuries. He absconded from bail, and was convicted of gross . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Extradition
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.324719